An army composed entirely of functioning psychopaths would have great difficulty in maintaining order.
Sadly, history has proved that even previously decent people will cheerfully perform the sickest of atrocities if they truly believe that they are going up to Paradise to meet that sadistic/childish psychopath in the sky.
Look at the Catholic Church over the blood- soaked millennia for example.
But that's organised religion for you - and radical Islam is the worst of the lot.
Are you only posting that to 'balance out' coverage for Sunni ISIS? You don't give a toss about any children really; you only care about bitching about non-Muslims, e.g. your toxic rants against 'Buddhist terrorists' and 'Hindu terrorists'.
Are you only posting that to 'balance out' coverage for Sunni ISIS? You don't give a toss about any children really; you only care about bitching about non-Muslims, e.g. your toxic rants against 'Buddhist terrorists' and 'Hindu terrorists'.
No they're just psychopaths craving power. It's got f-all to do with their religion. That is just the excuse to put people down.
It's all about power. Nothing more, nothing less.
Sexual perverts the lot of them, the things they do to the women they kidnap from places they invade is too terrible to repeat
That they do it to kids too doesn't surprise me one bit
They top a long list of people I'd like to see wiped off the face of the planet.
Ah, top trumps Middle Eastern style. How very whatabouterist.
Yeah, an attempt at deflecting attention from extreme Sunni child torture by focussing on Shia wrong doing so not only is it in poor taste, it's also a display of intra-faith sectarianism which in itself is a deeply unpleasant phenomenon.
Yeah, an attempt at deflecting attention from extreme Sunni child torture by focussing on Shia wrong doing so not only is it in poor taste, it's also a display of intra-faith sectarianism which in itself is a deeply unpleasant phenomenon.
Muslims slaughtering other Muslims - surely that has never happened before?
Or in any other organised religion for that matter.
I will have to check the history books far more closely in future.
All these people calling IS a bunch of psychopaths are deluding themselves. A psychopath is someone who has no concept of right or wrong. IS are a group of religious fundamentalists who believe what they are doing is justified by their holy book.
Some are more disgusting than others. Most of us can discriminate. The clues are out there.
When it comes to torturing civilians and locking them up somewhere without trial I don't make a distinction based on whether it's a "nice" Western country doing it or a violent terrorist group. Torture is torture it is equally hideous no matter what the aim behind it or the people doing it.
When it comes to torturing civilians and locking them up somewhere without trial I don't make a distinction based on whether it's a "nice" Western country doing it or a violent terrorist group. Torture is torture it is equally hideous no matter what the aim behind it or the people doing it.
Yes, I know you don't. You lack discrimination in both degree and intent. I already got this.
All these people calling IS a bunch of psychopaths are deluding themselves. A psychopath is someone who has no concept of right or wrong. IS are a group of religious fundamentalists who believe what they are doing is justified by their holy book.
Maybe you mean psychotics? Psychopaths know what they are doing.
Isis make me sick, we as in western society really need to act soon.
We should stay out of it. Some muslims get very upset about perceived attacks on their "brothers".
Like the Lee Rigby killer said after his murderous act
"If you find yourself curious as to why carnage is reaching your towns then know it is simply retaliation for your oppression in our towns."
It is hard to fathom the psychology behind things like this. Are the people doing this regular folks who have willingly joined up to this organisation with the hope of bettering society according to the scriptures they follow/believe in? Are they indoctrinated by persuasive people into believing that torturing children is acceptable as part of their noble cause? Or is it possible these people have been on the receiving end of the same treatment in the past (like how child-abusers are most usually formerly abused children themselves)?
Yes, I know you don't. You lack discrimination in both degree and intent. I already got this.
So torturing innocent civilians is fine as long as it's not "too much" torture, or you have a good reason for it, "The Greater Good" perhaps? Do you have any idea how much terror and suffering has resulted across the world because someone decided they were going to do a bad thing for the greater good?
So torturing innocent civilians is fine as long as it's not "too much" torture, or you have a good reason for it, "The Greater Good" perhaps? Do you have any idea how much terror and suffering has resulted across the world because someone decided they were going to do a bad thing for the greater good?
Well, if IS have made what they do legal then we shouldn't be doing anything about it.
Like the Lee Rigby killer said after his murderous act
"If you find yourself curious as to why carnage is reaching your towns then know it is simply retaliation for your oppression in our towns."
It is seen as a tit for tat exchange. We kill one of their people, they stab one of ours outside his barracks. Do we want to keep going round on that circle until of side is exterminated and the other side is nearly exterminated or do we try finding another way out. I've said it a few times before I think the best thing we could do is put the word out that we're open to negotiating a peace with these groups. In exchange for us not killing their people, we would expect that they not kill ours. We'd need to reach an agreement with the most powerful groups, the ones who have the power and influence to ensure that all on their side keep to that deal. The "not negotiating with terrorists" is a line that I think has been taken out of context as it simply refers to not financially rewarding acts of terror. If there's any chance of a lasting peace I think we need to look at it even if that means a dialogue with people we don't like.
It is seen as a tit for tat exchange. We kill one of their people, they stab one of ours outside his barracks. Do we want to keep going round on that circle until of side is exterminated and the other side is nearly exterminated or do we try finding another way out. I've said it a few times before I think the best thing we could do is put the word out that we're open to negotiating a peace with these groups. In exchange for us not killing their people, we would expect that they not kill ours. We'd need to reach an agreement with the most powerful groups, the ones who have the power and influence to ensure that all on their side keep to that deal. The "not negotiating with terrorists" is a line that I think has been taken out of context as it simply refers to not financially rewarding acts of terror. If there's any chance of a lasting peace I think we need to look at it even if that means a dialogue with people we don't like.
As seen by Hamas an attempt at peace doesn't work, all it is used for is restock and rearm it's arsenal.
If we appease Islamic State by allowing them to keep the occupied parts of Iraq and Syria then it redraws borders through terrorism.
Islamic terrorists are not interested in peace with infidels as the ideology is about conqerering and forcefully converting masses to Islam.
It's time the likes of Saudi, Jordan, UAE showed some actual conviction and committed ground troops to sort out their regional problems.
It is seen as a tit for tat exchange. We kill one of their people, they stab one of ours outside his barracks. Do we want to keep going round on that circle until of side is exterminated and the other side is nearly exterminated or do we try finding another way out. I've said it a few times before I think the best thing we could do is put the word out that we're open to negotiating a peace with these groups. In exchange for us not killing their people, we would expect that they not kill ours. We'd need to reach an agreement with the most powerful groups, the ones who have the power and influence to ensure that all on their side keep to that deal. The "not negotiating with terrorists" is a line that I think has been taken out of context as it simply refers to not financially rewarding acts of terror. If there's any chance of a lasting peace I think we need to look at it even if that means a dialogue with people we don't like.
So torturing innocent civilians is fine as long as it's not "too much" torture, or you have a good reason for it, "The Greater Good" perhaps? Do you have any idea how much terror and suffering has resulted across the world because someone decided they were going to do a bad thing for the greater good?
This is exactly what I'm on about. You lack good judgement.
Where will you run to when the bad guys turn up thanks to a lack of investment in security.
*technically* electrocution is a term to denote executing someone using electricity. However it has now become a term used to denote death or injury caused by electricity whether intentional or accidental.
"When they electrocuted me, I used to scream calling for my mother," he said. "But as soon as I did, [one of the torturers] used to up the voltage even more. 'Don't bring your mother in it,' he used to say."
If someone posts that the article is wrong and the boy wasn't electrocuted they should at least provide some evidence.
*technically* electrocution is a term to denote executing someone using electricity. However it has now become a term used to denote death or injury caused by electricity whether intentional or accidental.
One can be electrocuted and just suffer harm. One can use the word execute without it involving the termination of life.
Comments
Sadly, history has proved that even previously decent people will cheerfully perform the sickest of atrocities if they truly believe that they are going up to Paradise to meet that sadistic/childish psychopath in the sky.
Look at the Catholic Church over the blood- soaked millennia for example.
But that's organised religion for you - and radical Islam is the worst of the lot.
Are you only posting that to 'balance out' coverage for Sunni ISIS? You don't give a toss about any children really; you only care about bitching about non-Muslims, e.g. your toxic rants against 'Buddhist terrorists' and 'Hindu terrorists'.
#hypocrisy
Well said - their agenda is painfully obvious.
Because if we don't, WW3 is inevitable and that will be the end of life on planet Earth as we know it.
Sexual perverts the lot of them, the things they do to the women they kidnap from places they invade is too terrible to repeat
That they do it to kids too doesn't surprise me one bit
They top a long list of people I'd like to see wiped off the face of the planet.
Ah, top trumps Middle Eastern style. How very whatabouterist.
Yeah, an attempt at deflecting attention from extreme Sunni child torture by focussing on Shia wrong doing so not only is it in poor taste, it's also a display of intra-faith sectarianism which in itself is a deeply unpleasant phenomenon.
Muslims slaughtering other Muslims - surely that has never happened before?
Or in any other organised religion for that matter.
I will have to check the history books far more closely in future.
When it comes to torturing civilians and locking them up somewhere without trial I don't make a distinction based on whether it's a "nice" Western country doing it or a violent terrorist group. Torture is torture it is equally hideous no matter what the aim behind it or the people doing it.
Yes, I know you don't. You lack discrimination in both degree and intent. I already got this.
Maybe you mean psychotics? Psychopaths know what they are doing.
We should stay out of it. Some muslims get very upset about perceived attacks on their "brothers".
Like the Lee Rigby killer said after his murderous act
"If you find yourself curious as to why carnage is reaching your towns then know it is simply retaliation for your oppression in our towns."
Intervening in Syria is just what IS want.
Is that really true?
So torturing innocent civilians is fine as long as it's not "too much" torture, or you have a good reason for it, "The Greater Good" perhaps? Do you have any idea how much terror and suffering has resulted across the world because someone decided they were going to do a bad thing for the greater good?
I think thats how the argument went?
It is seen as a tit for tat exchange. We kill one of their people, they stab one of ours outside his barracks. Do we want to keep going round on that circle until of side is exterminated and the other side is nearly exterminated or do we try finding another way out. I've said it a few times before I think the best thing we could do is put the word out that we're open to negotiating a peace with these groups. In exchange for us not killing their people, we would expect that they not kill ours. We'd need to reach an agreement with the most powerful groups, the ones who have the power and influence to ensure that all on their side keep to that deal. The "not negotiating with terrorists" is a line that I think has been taken out of context as it simply refers to not financially rewarding acts of terror. If there's any chance of a lasting peace I think we need to look at it even if that means a dialogue with people we don't like.
As seen by Hamas an attempt at peace doesn't work, all it is used for is restock and rearm it's arsenal.
If we appease Islamic State by allowing them to keep the occupied parts of Iraq and Syria then it redraws borders through terrorism.
Islamic terrorists are not interested in peace with infidels as the ideology is about conqerering and forcefully converting masses to Islam.
It's time the likes of Saudi, Jordan, UAE showed some actual conviction and committed ground troops to sort out their regional problems.
Negotiate with IS ?
Are you a descendant of Chamberlain ?
This is exactly what I'm on about. You lack good judgement.
Where will you run to when the bad guys turn up thanks to a lack of investment in security.
It's a long paddle across the North Atlantic.
According to the BBC article, he was.
If someone posts that the article is wrong and the boy wasn't electrocuted they should at least provide some evidence.
One can be electrocuted and just suffer harm. One can use the word execute without it involving the termination of life.